PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Nov 14, 2013
Protecting Our Students and Taxpayers Act of 2013 or the POST Act of 2013 - Amends title IV (Student Assistance) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to require proprietary institutions of higher education to derive at least 15% of their revenue from sources other than federal funds or become ineligible for title IV funding. (Currently, the 90/10 rule requires these schools to derive at least 10% of their revenue from sources other than title IV or become ineligible for title IV funding.)
Defines "federal funds" as federal financial assistance provided through a grant, contract, subsidy, loan, guarantee, insurance, or other means to a proprietary institution, including federal financial assistance that is provided to an institution on behalf of a student or to a student to attend the institution. Excludes monthly housing stipends provided under the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance program from consideration as federal funds.
Limits what a proprietary institution may treat as revenue to the school in calculating whether it derives at least 15% of its revenue from non-federal funds.
People & committees
Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9] · D–TN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.3496 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.3496 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.3496 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.3496 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.